Balancing Copyright and Library Rights in a Digital Age

Trevor C. Clarke (left) and Winston Tabb at an IFLA session on copyright.

Print

Copyright was created to protect the rights of literary and creative artists, said Trevor C. Clarke of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Librarians have now challenged WIPO to protect libraries’ rights, he said, noting that WIPO has also moved to secure its own position in a rapidly changing information world. Speaking on Monday at the second plenary session of IFLA’s 77th World Library and Information Congress in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Clarke spent a sizeable chunk of time talking about what librarians must do to secure their positions. Much of it has to do with achieving a balance, he said.

Winston Tabb, chair of the IFLA Committee on Copyright and Other Legal Matters, introduced Clarke and moderated the panel discussion that followed. WIPO, Clarke told the audience, has established nine goals to align its resources with its objectives and serve its member nations better. Clarke referred early on to IFLA’s efforts, particularly the Statement of Principles, an IFLA document shared with WIPO in May 2009, in which the library community asserts that exceptions to copyright law should be viewed as public rights, balancing the private rights that copyright law seems to favor. “I do believe that exceptions and limitations provide an appropriate avenue through which a balance might be found,” Clarke asserted, adding that the use of limitations by developing countries is understandable but the importance of copyright law to developing countries should not be dismissed. It is a matter of “finding the right balance.”

“The growth of information is spiraling,” said Clarke, “creating ever more contentious debates about who owns information and the conditions under which it can be used.” Copyright law is at times complex, confusing, and unfair. When it becomes a question of commercial versus public interest, the fact that libraries share information without charge with the public may be the most contentious issue.

WIPO is indeed a policy-setting organization, Clarke asserted, but policies are set by member states and do not necessarily reflect the views of all of them. He gave three examples: 32 of 61 do not plan to modify their laws, only 10 have expressed their views on what limitations would be necessary in national legislation, and 29 of 61 are not aware of any impediments to the use of limitations and exceptions related to library use and archives. “My advice to you,” he said, “is that you have to deal with the governments.”

“IFLA has drafted its own statement of exceptions and limitations,” Clarke said, “and I applaud you for that.” But he cautioned that “for librarians the road ahead will be difficult.” He agreed with assertions that copyright legislation is too complicated, suggesting that librarians continue to create opportunities for learning about copyright.

“If everyone is feeling equally unhappy then you know you have found the right balance,” Clarke concluded. “I know libraries are unhappy. This matter of extending exceptions and limitations is a very difficult one, not unlike balancing the U.S. budget.” In the matter of commercial exploitation versus access to knowledge, progress can be made only through information sharing and compromise, commercial interest and human interest. “Without people there would be no need for commerce,” so there must be a “balance between commercial interests and the welfare of people everywhere.”